A PEOPLE’S PLAN FOR THE EAST RIVER WATERFRONT

O.U.R. WATERFRONT COALITION About the Authors: Organizing and Uniting Residents (O.U.R.) Waterfront is a coalition of community- based organizations and tenant associations representing residents of the Lower East Side and Chinatown, including: CAAAV Organizing Asian Communities, the Urban Justice Center’s Community Development Project (UJC), Good Old Lower East Side (GOLES), Jews for Racial and Economic Justice (JFREJ), Public Housing Residents of the Lower East Side (PHROLES), Hester Street Collaborative, the Lower East Side Ecology Center, Two Bridges Neighborhood Council and University Settlement. These groups are a mixture of membership-led community organizing groups, social service providers, and other resource allies that are based in or work with groups in the Lower East Side and Chinatown.

Acknowledgements: we would like to thank all those in the O.U.R. Waterfront Coalition who helped with the visioning process and the creation of this report. Particularly we would like to acknowledge: Dylan House and Anne Fredrick at Hester Street Collaborative for design and layout work; Leroy Street Studio, David Sweeney and Rebecca Reich for the financial analysis; Chris Fernandez, Molly Slavin and Alexa Kasdan at the Urban Justice Center’s Community Development Project for research, analysis and writing support; Meghan Clarke, Esther Wang, and Joel Feingold for overall guidance and coordination. And a special thanks to the Andrus Family Fund and the Mertz Gilmore Foundation for their generous support of this work. I. Overview and Methodology 1 Who We Are: The OUR Waterfront Coalition 3 Methodology: How We Conducted the Visioning 4 Neighborhood Context: Where we are working 6 II. History of Development on the East River Waterfront 7 III. The City’s Plan for the East River Waterfront 11 Funding 13 Components of the Plan and Current Progress 14 IV. Research Findings 21 V. The People’s Development Plan 35 Site Analysis 36 Options for development 37 Capital and operating budgets 42 VI. Shortfalls and Negative Consequences of the EDC Plan 47 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE VII. O.U.R Waterfront Policy Recommendations 51 VIII. Appendices 55 Appendix 1 : O.U.R. Waterfront Survey (English/Chinese/Spanish) Appendix 2: Visioning Activity: A day at the waterfront Appendix 3: Budget proformas, Operating / capital for People’s Plan option 3 Budget for Community Center Appendix 4: Letter between CB3 and Basketball City List of Figures, Maps, and Graphs

Fig.1 - Map of Lower Manhattan showing locations of O.U.R. Waterfront Coalition Members, page 3 Fig. 2 - Map of Community District 3 Manhattan, showing Waterfront sites, and New York City Housing Agency properties, page 6 Fig. 3 - Timeline showing the history of waterfront developments from 1954-2009, page 8-9 Fig. 4 - Map of NYCEDC Project area showing different elements of the development plan, page 12 Fig. 5 - Map of NYCEDC Project elements showing how LMDC funds are being allocated across the site, page 13 Fig. 6 - Graph of O.U.R. Waterfront survey responses to the the question “should there be businesses on the waterfront?” page 22 Fig. 7 - Graph of O.U.R. Waterfront survey responses showing priorities for services, activities, and programs on the waterfront, page 22 Fig. 8 - Graphic showing the top three priorities for services activities and programs on the waterfront, page 22 Fig. 9 - Map of Lower Manhattan showing accessible open spaces overlaid with percentage of households living below the poverty line per census tract, page 24 Fig. 10 - Graph of O.U.R. Waterfront survey responses showing priorities for businesses on the waterfront, page 28 Fig. 11 - Graphic showing the top three priorities for businesses on the waterfront, page 29 Fig. 12 - Diagram of O.U.R. Waterfront survey responses showing the top five concerns around the waterfront site, page 31 Fig. 13 - Diagram showing the relative length of the shed building on Pier 36 compared to the height of the Empire State Building, page 36 Fig. 14 - Plan Diagram showing site access conditions at Piers 35,36, and 42, page 36 Fig. 15 - Plan Diagram of People’s Plan Option 1, page 37 Fig. 16 - Plan Diagram of People’s Plan Option 2, page 38 Fig. 17 – Perspective Rendering of People’s Plan Option 2, page 39 Fig. 18 – Plan Diagram of People’s Plan Option 3, page 40 Fig. 19 – Perspective Rendering of People’s Plan Option 3, page 41 Fig. 20 – Diagram of budget for elements of People’s Plan Option 3, page 42 I. Overview and Methodology

O.U.R. Waterfront Visioning Session New York City’s East River Waterfront spans almost the entire length of Manhattan, and includes substantial sections of Brooklyn and Queens. The surrounding community is home to a diverse array of New Yorkers, and while the area has undergone profound gentrification in recent years, residents are still largely low-income and working class. For instance, in 2008, the median household income for Community District 3, which includes the Lower East Side and Chinatown, was just $32,038 Furthermore, nearly 85% of area residents live in subsidized or rent-regulated housing1. For decades, both the LES and Chinatown have been a home, a workplace, and a marketplace for generations of immigrants who through the decades have built the thriving communities they are today. But they are changing dramatically—over the past 10 years, the Lower East Side and Chinatown have experienced a flood of new development and construction, which has greatly accelerated in the wake of 9/11 and has been facilitated by pro-real estate City policies under Mayor Bloomberg. The ongoing gentrification of Chinatown and the Lower East Side has opened the door to further overpriced development of the surrounding neighborhood. City policies have led to forced displacement and the deregulation of rent regulated housing stock. Substantial new construction, including luxury condominiums, boutique hotels, trendy restaurants, and expensive stores, has altered the urban character of the Lower East Side and Chinatown and has led to the displacement of low-income residents as well as small businesses. As gentrification continues to expand towards the waterfront it becomes increasingly difficult for low income people to have access to services and space in the neighborhood. In 2005 the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC), the City’s official economic development organization, launched a plan to dramatically redevelop the waterfront in the Lower East Side and Chinatown2. This was part of Mayor Bloomberg’s larger vision for economic development, outlined in his blueprint for economic development, PlaNYC, and part of the Mayor’s push to develop valuable waterfront land in New York City, much of which was underused and former industrial space. Overall, these plans were not responsive to the needs of the surrounding community and did not include any mechanisms for community input or participation in decision making about the development. Chinatown and the LES are two neighborhoods that have gentrified rapidly in the last decade, and the EDC’s plan as originally drafted had the potential to increase the pace of gentrification. As a result, several community organizations came together to form the OUR Waterfront Coalition. This coalition has created a visioning process to allow for wide scale participation of the community most affected by development on the East River waterfront and to document their ideas and concerns. The following report, “The People’s Plan,” will lay out the results of this comprehensive visioning process and outline the community’s vision for the Waterfront. The People’s Plan will also explain the current status of the NYCEDC’s plan for the East River Waterfront and explain why and how that plan overlooks the needs of the surrounding community. Who We Are: The O.U.R. Waterfront Coalition O.U.R. Waterfront is a coalition of community-based organizations and tenant associations representing residents of the Lower East Side and Chinatown who are organizing to make sure that development along the East River waterfront serves the needs of the diverse communities that live closest to it, especially low-income people, people of color, and immigrant communities. We believe that these communities must be central to the decision-making process about the development and management of their waterfront. This coalition was formed in the summer of 2007 and has since grown to include 9 organizations including; CAAAV Organizing Asian Communities, the Urban Justice Center’s Community Development Project (UJC), Good Old Lower East Side (GOLES), Jews for Racial and Economic Justice (JFREJ), Public Housing Residents of the Lower East Side (PHROLES), Hester Street Collaborative, the Lower East Side Ecology Center, Two Bridges Neighborhood Council and University Settlement. These groups are a mixture of membership- led community organizing groups, social service providers, and other resource allies that are based in or work with groups in the Lower East Side and Chinatown.

FIG. 1

O.U.R. WATERFRONT COALITION MEMBERS JEWS FOR RACIAL AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE CAAAV: ORGANIZING ASIAN COMMUNITIES GOLES - GOOD OLD LOWER EAST SIDE COMMUNITY PHROLES - PUBLIC HOUSING RESIDENTS OF THE LOWER EAST SIDE DISTRICT 3 UNIVERSITY SETTLEMENT LOWER EAST SIDE ECOLOGY CENTER WATERFRONT HESTER STREET COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT TWO BRIDGES NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL URBAN JUSTICE CENTER / COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT Methodology: How We Conducted the Visioning Over the past year, the OUR Waterfront Coalition has completed a comprehensive community visioning process to determine and document the community’s response to the proposed redevelopment of the East River Waterfront by the New York City Economic Development Corporation. This process also enabled the communities surrounding the East River to develop their own concrete plan for how the waterfront should be developed. The information presented in the People’s Plan was collected using variety of research methods. These include:

800 Surveys, conducted with community members in the Lower East Side and Chinatown between 800 July and November of 2008. The survey asked residents to prioritize the types of services and businesses they would like to see on the waterfront. It also asked economic based questions such people were as how much money would be reasonable to spend on a day at the waterfront as well as overall fears PI and concerns of having the waterfront developed. The survey respondents, representative of the ER 42 surveyed community’s stakeholders, were diverse in terms of age, race, ethnicity, income level, language, and zip codes. The survey data was analyzed by researchers at the Urban Justice Center’s Community Development project. [Addendum 1: Survey]

Three visioning sessions with 150 participants, hosted by five different Three organizations: CAAAV, GOLES, University Settlement, JFREJ and Two Bridges. The visioning sessions were held in Spanish, Chinese and English and were attended visioning by a variety of community members representing the diverse demographics of the sessions neighborhoods impacted by the development. For these sessions, the survey data was translated into a community-accessible format and presented to community with 150 members. Participants were asked to answer various questions about their priorities and interests for the development of the waterfront. The responses were transcribed participants by note takers and analyzed by researchers for this report. [Addendum 2: Visuals from Workshop] Methodology: How We Conducted the Visioning A town hall A town hall meeting with 80 participants and elected officials: At this meeting, which was held in English, Chinese and Spanish, the coalition presented the meeting findings from the visioning sessions as well as 3 different design scenarios of how with 80 the waterfront could be developed, based on the visioning process. Community members voted on and discussed which scenario best matched their needs and participants priorities.

A financial analysis and business plan was completed by The Pratt Center for Community Development, based on the community’s vision of the development of the East River Waterfront. This plan provides concrete financial data including Financial operating budgets, maintenance budgets and management structures for 3 different development scenarios. Each scenario is based on the data collected analysis and a through the survey and visioning sessions and includes uses that were prioritized by the community. For this plan, Pratt focused on 3 specific areas slated for business plan development: pier 35, 36 and 42. based on the

Review of NYC Economic Development Corporation (EDC) Contracts and community’s Financial Information. A comprehensive review of documents, including budgets, vision contracts, and email correspondence obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests was conducted by pro-bono legal counsel. Through this review, attorneys analyzed all the contracts and subcontracts between NYCEDC and (?) pertaining to money allocated to the East River Development project through the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation. Review of EDC contracts Through the these methods, the OUR Waterfront alliance was able to develop > this plan which articulates, visualizes and operationalizes the community’s and financial vision for the development of the East River Waterfront. information Neighborhood Context: Where We are Working

e

g

d i r b

a i v e l 85% ib of area residents live in subsidized s s or rent-regulated housing. e WILLIAMSBURG BRIDGE c c a t NYCHA properties n o r f r EAST RIVER PARK te a e, w e at grad oot FDR Driv sible on f t acces aterfron Pier 42 ted, w Pier 36 a MANHATTAN BRIDGE ve elev Pier 35 R Dri FD

BROOKLYN BRIDGE

NORTH

FIG. 2

SOUTH STREET SEAPORT II. History of Development on the East River Waterfront

Historically, the East River Waterfront has been the site of various development projects. In 1954, the FDR Drive was completed on land where there used to be tenements and row houses. Its construction created a physical barrier to the waterfront and limited the public’s use of the waterfront. Since then there have been numerous attempts to develop this land, oftentimes neglecting the needs and input of the community. Some major examples of this development are included in the following timeline.

Elevated FDR Drive FIG. 3 The FDRDrive iscompleted. itbecomes

FDR East River Drive Completed a barrierto thewaterfront 1954

Battery Park Urban Renewal Area Proposal 1959

South Street Seaport Museum Opens 1967 A milelongredevelopment project and David Rockefeller that was to be“Battery Park City” for the

Manhattan Landing Proposal East River, butthecomplicated proposed byMayorLindsay 1972 financing never materialized.

South Street Seaport Mall Opened 1983

Parking Garage Planned for Piers 35-36 1992

State Assembly Speaker

Silver’s sues City to block Garage The Dinkinsadministration proposed to build an unwanted garage onPier36rather than developing itfor beneficial community use. build thegarage ontwo-thirds of Pier36, 1993-1994 Because of thelawsuit theCity agrees to with therest of Pier36to beused

Garage constructed with a dedicated

space for “community use” for a“community facility.” 1994 Pier 36Shedbuilding.Itisgoing into the “Communityfacillity” withinthe construction intheFall of 2009

Basketball City submits bid for lease of Pier 36 Basketball City won thebidfor 1996

East River Waterfront used for 9/11 recovery effort 2001-2002

LMDC Created

2002 The Lower Manhattan created to coordinate projects like theEast effort ,andchannel post 9/11 rebuildingpost 9/11 Corporation was federal dollars to River Waterfront

City releases Concept Plan “Transforming Development the East River Waterfront” 2005

Fulton Fish Market relocates to the Bronx 2005

EDC’s Uniform Land Use Review Procedure completed 2007

East River Waterfront Esplanade Plan Approved

2008 Shop Architects condos, andluxuryretail. Theproject’s new plansto dramatically redevelop General Growth Properties unveiled South Street withhotels, Seaport future isnow uncertain following General Growth’s bancruptcy. New Seaport Luxury Development Plan 2008

OUR Waterfront Community Surveying 2008

OUR Waterfront Community Visioning Process Spring 2009 O.U.R. Waterfront Visioning

Peoples Plan presented to EDC Fall 2009 Sessions

III. The City’s Plan for the East River Waterfront

First released in 2005, The NYC Economic Development Coporation’s “Transforming the East River Waterfront” concept plan offered a broad plan for redevelopment of the East River Waterfront, roughly from Broad Street to Jackson Street. Approximately two miles long, this area encompasses both Community Board 1 and Community Board 3. The original 2005 EDC plan for the waterfront was comprised of three main elements; the esplanade, pavillions, and pier projects3.

Cover of the “Transforming the East River Waterfront” report What is the NYC EDC? The Economic Development Corporation is New York City’s official development organization. Formed in 1991 as a merger between two non-profit corporations, today the EDC is a 501(c)(3) non-profit agency. The NYCEDC’s mission includes: managing City-owned properties and assets; providing economic and policy advice to the City; administering loans for both commercial and public uses; and creating partnerships between the public and private sectors. The NYCEDC is run by the President, Seth Pinksy, who was appointed by Mayor Bloomberg in 2008, along with a Board of Directors, who are also appointed by the Mayor. In the particular case of the East River Waterfront, the city plans to use the EDC to invest in, develop and manage the waterfront’s development projects. The EDC’s plan COMMUNITY BOARD 3

COMMUNITY BOARD 1 pier 42 pier 35 Piers pier 15 Redevelopment of Piers 15, 35 and 42 for commercial and open space NORTH Pavillions Enclosed “Pavilions” under the FDR that would be designated for commercial and community use. Pier 36 is not included in Esplanade the plan, but the Development of an EDC is developing Esplanade for recreational Basketball City on and open space that pier. FIG. 4 Funding from LMDC This ambitious plan was instituted as part of post-9/11 Lower Manhattan redevelopment and is being financed through funds granted from the Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant Program to the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC). For this project the NYCEDC has been allocated $138 million from the LMDC4.

$138 million how EDC plans to spend them...

Pier 42 no budget Esplanade B Pier 35 $67,652,342 $19,709,443 Pier 15 $32,683,480 Pavilions FIG. 5 no budget What’s been spent so far... Esplanade A As of June 2009 the EDC has spent $38.5 million of $12,942,794 these funds. According to NYCEDC budget documents, the spending breakdown includes: $10 million for architectural and landscape design $5 million for engineering consulting $10 million for Esplanade B, Phase 1 construction $13.5 million for Pier 15 marine work Components of the Plan and Current Progress The information in this section is derived from budgets, contracts and other documents acquired from the EDC through Freedom of Information Act requests. The information provided by the EDC was not comprehensive and did not include budgetary figures for all the components of the plan.

Pavillions EDC’s Original Plan Current status EDC Project Renderings EDC initially called for As of July 2009, the two pavilions to be pavilions have been 2005 built for community indefinitely postponed use at Peck Slip. After by the EDC. No plan a planning meeting, for alternative commu- community members nity space has been identified the top three shared7. potential uses for the pavilions: active use The Pavillions would have (exercise and recre- been located in the derelict ational space), a com- space beneath the FDR drive munity health center, 2007 and an anti-eviction center6. Projected Total Cost $ spent to Date unknown Project has been indefi- nitely postponed.

Key to EDC Project Renderings (architectural drawings of proposal) EDC project proposal that EDC project proposal Year that each EDC has either been changed that has been 2007 rendering, to illustrate = from EDC’S original plan = approved and is = the project, was or it’s development is now moving forward into released to the public uncertain construction Esplanade EDC’s Original Plan Current status EDC Project Renderings The EDC’s original plan Ground was broken for the esplanade on August 18. The first included multi-use phase of the es- railings (brackets for planade project will fishing poles, historical improve the existing placards, viewfinders, structure to safely ac- etc) that would en- commodate both pe- hance the waterfront destrians and cyclists. environment; arbors It will feature new for shade, swings and plantings, seating and 2005 built-in lighting; and lighting, a dedicated benches for enjoy- bikeway and visitor- ing waterfront views, friendly designs, and having a family picnic, is set to be completed Current conditions of the by 201110 esplanade or playing a game of . chess8.

Projected Total Cost $ spent to Date $80,595,1369 Ground broken on August 18, figures have 2007 not been released. Components continued

Pier 35 EDC’s Original Plan Current status EDC Project Renderings The EDC’s initial plan The EDC now plans was for a two-tier to focus on passive pier, with limited open recreation as well as space on the top level open and green space and a “Bluemarket”– on the pier. One main a space to provide element of the plan information on and is to create a “green” products from sus- planted wall that tainable fisheries – on serves the purpose of the lower level. The hiding the shed build- “Bluemarket” would ing on Pier 3616. serve as both an edu- 2005 cational space and as a revenue-generating restaurant14.

Projected Total Cost Pier 35 is the only open space $19,709,44315 within Community District 3 that is moving forward in EDC’s plan. It is located adjacent to Pier 36 that houses the Sanitation $ spent to Date shed and the site of Basketball Ground broken on City. August 18, figures have not been released. 2009 Pier 42 EDC’s Original Plan Current status EDC Project Renderings Preliminary plans Plans remain underde- called for temporary veloped. No plans are commercial space on in place to re-issue a the pier, necessitating request for proposals reinforcement of the for Pier 4213. pier and demolition of the pier’s existing 2005 structures11.

Pier 42 has a large unoccupied shed building. The pier structure needs to be rehabilitated before anything can be built on it.

Projected Total Cost $ spent to Date $15 million to $20 No construction has been undertaken. million12 2007 Components continued

Pier 36/ Basketball City EDC’s Original Plan Current status While Basketball City is not part of the EDC’s original Concpet Plan In 1992, the city Basketball City is for the East River Watefront, Pier 36 is an important site on the wa- attempted to build a set to break ground terfront. From the beginning of planning for Basketball City, there has sanitation facility on on Pier 36 in 2009. been contention over what should be done with the space at pier the pier, but part of The local community 36. The pier located between Piers 35 and 42 is the largest publicly the plan was blocked board worked out an owned space between Battery Park and East River Park. in court. In order to arrangement with finish the project, the Basketball City to give city agreed to develop certain concessions part of the pier as to local residents, “community space.” but the stipulations The EDC awarded this agreed on in the deal space to Basketball are not binding or rec- City, Inc., a high-rent, ognized by the EDC or for-profit gymnasium the city18. in 199617.

Projected Total Cost $ spent to Date unknown 20 year lease has been signed, exact figures are unclear5. Basketball City Community Provisions In 2003, the developer of Basketball City, Bruce Radler, offered Community Board 3 a list of equitable community provisions to ensure that the Basketball City facility would accommodate and benefit local residents. The provisions outlined by Basketball City and the CB3 included: > 20% of court time for community members during peak hours on weekdays and weekends. > 30% of court time for community members on non-peak hours on weekdays and 20% of court time to community members during non-peak hours on weekends. > Priority to community groups within CB3 such as public and parochial schools and nonprofit organizations. > Discounted yearly membership fees for individual community residents Will it happen? While Community Board > Reduced rate for senior citizens 3 decided to accept this using the health club. offer from Basketball City in 2005, it is unclear if > Healthy food and beverages these stipulations will be in its vending machines as well as public water fountains and rest rooms available to the implemented because the community. agreement is not binding and not recognized by the > Make its best effort to hire local residents EDC or New York City. If not and include effective outreach when positions are identified addressed explicitly, it is likely that many residents will > Construction of two community rooms be priced out of this to be use by the Pier 35/36 Ad-Hoc Committee, Community Board #3 (Manhattan), facility. non-profit organizations and schools at no charge.

V. Research Findings

The OUR Waterfront Coalition has conducted a comprehensive visioning process to develop the People’s Plan. This plan articulates the needs of the community by carefully gathering and implementing specific ideas for activities, services, and businesses that the community has voiced and prioritized. In addition, this plan presents a viable financial plan for the implementation of the community’s priorities. The following section contains the findings from 800 surveys and the O.U.R. Waterfront visioning sessions.

O.U.R. Waterfront town hall meeting SURVEY RESULTS: PRIORITIES FOR SERVICES, ACTIVITIES AND PROGRAMS

SURVEY RESULTS: Finding 1 70% Free and Low-Cost Services PRIORITIES FOR SERVICES, ACTIVITIES AND PROGRAMS Residents of the Lower East Side 60% and Chinatown want the East 50%

River Development project to 40% SURVEY RESULTS: prioritize free and low-costPRIORITIESSURVEY servicesRESULTS: FOR BUSINESS 30% businesses and retail.PRIORITIES FOR BUSINESS SHOULD THERE BE 20% BUSINESSES AND  SHOPSSHOULD ON THERETHE BE  Data collected through both 10% the survey and community WATERFRONT?BUSINESSES AND IF YES, WHAT TYPES OF BUSINESSES?  visioning sessions, shows that SHOPS ON THE  WATERFRONT? IF YES, WHAT TYPES OF BUSINESSES? 50%  ? residents were most interested L

N (6%) 16%)

in ensuring that programs, (37%) (57%) (22%) (29%) (40%) (50%) (40%) (54%) ETAI

? R E E S ( R S S S 40%

/ 50% E services and businesses C A C ? MATIO A C ITIE ICE EATIONAL R P OTHE V R CIAL along the waterfront were S P S TIVITIE UN TIVITIES

? R T N C

A L 30% INFO SERVI R REC A SER A C affordable and accessible ? EDUCATIONA L L ? 4O 0% OPE T UR IA PP EMPLOYMENT / JOB CREATION OMME to long-time residents of the ? C U L O ? C ARTS AN D C

SO 20% surrounding community. ? FIG. 7 TRANSPORTATION ? 30% Survey respondents indicated ?? Community residents also explained the types of free services that commercial uses were not and programs that they would like to see developed.10% The types ?? a priority. As indicated in the of free services, programs and resources that were prioritized20% graph to the right, less than ?? Social Services by survey respondents include: ? one- third of the respondents

? (1%)

(6%) 10% (17%)

(14%)

(23%) (25%) (25%) (29%)

(30%) R

wanted business to be a part (28.7%) (44.8%) (26.5%) ?

of the development. NO OTHE YES ? DEMOGRAPHICS RETAIL 40%? ETHNICITY 64% LANGUAGE54% ANNUAL INCOME

ASIAN (43%) ENGLISH (51%) 0-20K (48%) DON’T KNOW DON’T (1%) (17%) (6%) BIG BOX STORES BOX BIG (14%) (25%) (25%) (29%) (30%) BARS AND CLUBS R (23%) (28%) ENTERTAINMENT (32%) (21%)

LATINO/ HISPANIC 26.5%) Sports and Recreation Education CHINESE Open Space 20-40K (28.7%) (44.8%) FIG. 6 ( WHITE (12%) SPANISH (19%) FIG. 840-60K (29%)

NO NO (8%) BLACK/ AFRICAN AMERICAN OTHE (7%)

YES 60K+ RETAIL MIXED RACE (2%) SPORTS AND RECREATION AND SPORTS CAFES AND COFFEE SHOPS FULL SERVICE RESTAURANTS RESTAURANTS SERVICE FULL

CARTS, KIOSKS AND VENDORS = 5% OF PEOPLE SURVEYED DON’T KNOW KNOW DON’T BIG BOX STORES BOX BIG BARS AND CLUBS ENTERTAINMENT

DEMOGRAPHICS SPORTS AND RECREATION AND SPORTS

ETHNICITY LANGUAGECAFES AND COFFEE SHOPS ANNUAL INCOME FULL SERVICE RESTAURANTS RESTAURANTS SERVICE FULL

ASIAN (43%) ENGLISCARTS, KIOSKS AND VENDORS H (51%) 0-20K (48%) LATINO/ HISPANIC (28%) CHINESE (32%) 20-40K (21%) WHITE (12%) SPANISH (19%) 40-60K (29%) BLACK/ AFRICAN AMERICAN (8%) 60K+ (7%) MIXED RACE (2%)

DEMOGRAPHICS = 5% OF PEOPLE SURVEYED ETHNICITY LANGUAGE ANNUAL INCOME

ASIAN (43%) ENGLISH (51%) 0-20K (48%) LATINO/ HISPANIC (28%) CHINESE (32%) 20-40K (21%) WHITE (12%) SPANISH (19%) 40-60K (29%) BLACK/ AFRICAN AMERICAN (8%) 60K+ (7%) MIXED RACE (2%)

= 5% OF PEOPLE SURVEYED Finding 1 - Free and Low-Cost Services Sports and Recreation Residents overwhelmingly expressed the sentiment that the current sports “We need Handball and recreation facilities along the East River waterfront are inadequate. They courts/paddleball believe that the East River Park ball fields have become overcrowded and courts because inaccessible for local residents. People also explained that there is a lack of they knocked “Living in America quality basketball and handball courts because they have been destroyed these down in this neighborhood.” gives us a lot of or have deteriorated. ball nd pressure, we need a l H a place to relax and tbal To take advantage of the East River ke iver Poo have fun.” as R l B p the community feels that there ho to : should also be opportunities M e t to participate in water sports a

B

r

including fishing, kayaking and u n

ing z

sailing. People responded ak e

ay m that they need spaces to K a barbeque and open spaces to sunbathe, read and relax. Development also needs “There need to be to accommodate all of the activities like fishing, community’s residents walking and jogging, including senior citizens. things that the ageing population can “(Recreation) engage in.” should be free; Chelsea (Piers) is too expensive.” Residents also fear that the development will only include high cost sports and recreation options. Specifically, they are concerned that See Page 18 for the proposed development of Basketball City on Pier 36 will not be section about accessible to community residents because of the facility’s high Basketball City costs. Finding 1 - Free and Low-Cost Services ACCESS TO OPEN SPACE: THE DISPARITY BETWEEN HIGH AND LOW INCOME NEIGHBORHOODS Open Space “There is very limited open space; PARK SPACE Participants of the visioning sessions agreed that it is an important OTHER OPEN SPACE part of growing up Percentage of Households there is a lack of open space and green space in their Living Below the Poverty Line community. Despite the presence of a few nearby in New York City.” per Census Tract 0% - 10% parks in the neighborhood, community residents feel 11% - 20% that access to quality green, open space is limited and 21% - 30% 31% - 50% insufficient. In addition, visioning participants feel that 51% - 100% quality park space is more available in higher-income areas such as Battery Park City and the West Village. “We don’t have People also felt that the open space in addition flowers or grass in to being green must also be functional. They this neighborhood suggested that the open space along the so we need East River Waterfront should include that along the “It is grass and trees as well as enough waterfront.” healthy for places for people to utilize and the community enjoy the space. and free for everyone to FIG. 9 use.” Brooklyn Bridge Park Open Space on the Piers Participants in the visioning explained that they have specific ideas for how the piers (35, 36, and 42) should be developed. This includes: green space for sunbathing, “We need reading, playing, and a space for barbequing. green, open In conceptualizing this vision of the piers and space on the waterfront, people gave examples of Battery piers.” Park as a model. In explaining why green, open space is an important addition to the community. Existing Site Plan for the new park Finding 1 - Free and Low-Cost Services Education Another priority articulated by residents during the survey and visioning process is the need to develop educational opportunities for adults and children in the neighborhood as part of the East River Development “Education should process. This was especially important to low-income residents that were surveyed, who expressed a incorporate the higher interest in this than those surveyed overall. 54% of low-income residents prioritized education while important social and environmental 50% of the overall respondents listed it as a priority. history of the Lower This should be done, residents feel, through the local schools and existing community based non-profit East Side.” organizations. They suggested that schools and organizations create educational programs and that these programs should be free and focus on environmental and social issues.

” I like the idea of having space for a group of students to learn about the river and have an outdoor “There should be classroom. A safe workshops on recycling outdoor space for to keep people classes doesn’t exist conscious and involved here right now.” with environmentalism and how it relates to healthy living, exercise and nutrition.”

Some other examples of educational programming discussed were: day camps for local children; language classes; environmentally focused field trips for schools; activities on local/native plants, workshops on recycling, healthy living, exercise and nutrition. Finding 2 Arts and Cultural Space Cultural Diversity Another high priority identified through the surveys and Residents want programs, services visioning sessions is the need for local and accessible community art and cultural space. The community and businesses that reflect and suggested that there should be a space for public art and will preserve the rich cultural the art showcased should reflect the cultural diversity of the community. Aside from showcasing traditional forms of diversity of the surrounding art, it was suggested that the space could also be used for cultural presentation and free movie screenings. In trying to neighborhoods. promote local use of the space, another idea would be to install a graffiti/mural space that would allow street artists to display their art without fear of prosecution. To keep the space accessible local art groups should be prioritized for this space. At the community visioning sessions several people commented on wanting to see more local and public art: Food and retail vendors that represent cultural “The legacy of the diversity of community neighborhood could “When I was growing up be represented by there were a lot of street Throughout the visioning process, having an area to murals. It would be great participants explained that they watch films. “ to bring that back. This wanted to see vendors and kiosks waterfront should stress that represented the cultural “We would like it if the unique character of this vendors were more community and not just be diversity of the surrounding convenient and cheaper, another Upper West Side neighborhoods. These vendors and if they were made to “(Having a space) Riverside Park imitation.” would sell low-cost, ethnic food our taste. We would like to for art and culture that represents the cultural see things like dumplings, will revitalize diversity of the community. fried pancakes, fried rice… and renew the Residents felt that this we could bring many community for all cultures together – food of ages.” would also create jobs for all cultures could be sold community residents. on the waterfront.” Finding 3 Social Services Health and Quality of Life Participants at the community Residents want services, visioning sessions explained that “There could be one social services are a necessary building for community programs and businesses that component of the development organizations, office space, of the waterfront because there is community outreach space, will improve the health and such a high need for services in the community health center, community. Participants wanted a and free things that are quality of life of residents. available daily in the open variety of services to be available space.” through a multi-use community center, including: health services; assistance with translation; language classes; Healthy Food eviction prevention; and other case In describing the types of vendors and small business management. Participants stressed that they want on the waterfront, participants that these services should be explained that there is a need for healthy food such culturally appropriate and tailored to the needs of the community. as fresh produce. Many participants said that they “We want services to wanted to see fresh fruits and vegetable stands and/ better help us understand Low-income respondents were what is happening in our or a farmers market that sells affordable and healthy more likely to want social services food. community; we want as part of the development than interpretation services if the overall survey respondents. we can’t read letters or fill out forms.” “…it would be good for For people making between community if we had $10-20k, 50% responded that they somewhere to go to would like social services at the buy fresh produce… waterfront while 46% of people it would be good making less than $10k said that for the health of the would like social services. This is community.” compared to 41% of the general survey respondents who listed social services as a priority. SURVEY RESULTS: PRIORITIES FOR BUSINESS

SHOULD THERE BE BUSINESSES AND SHOPS ON THE WATERFRONT? IF YES, WHAT TYPES OF BUSINESSES?

Finding 4 SURVEY RESULTS: 50% PRIORITIES FOR BUSINESSES Low-cost Businesses? Although free services? are 40% preferred, residents? also want low-cost businesses? as 30% their neighborhood? becomes increasingly unaffordable.? 20% ? With gentrification increasing in Chinatown and 10% the Lower East Side, it is important? to residents that new businesses along the waterfront be both locally owned and affordable to? the neighborhood. ? These businesses should also be accessible and (1%) (17%) cater to the needs of all the people that live in the (6%) (14%) (25%) (25%) (29%) (30%) R (23%)

26.5%) (28.7%) (44.8%) surrounding neighborhood, particularly low-income ( people. NO OTHE YES RETAIL As indicated in the corresponding graph, visioning participants expressed interest in the low cost DON’T KNOW KNOW DON’T BIG BOX STORES BOX BIG BARS AND CLUBS businesses. ENTERTAINMENT SPORTS AND RECREATION AND SPORTS CAFES AND COFFEE SHOPS FULL SERVICE RESTAURANTS RESTAURANTS SERVICE FULL CARTS, KIOSKS AND VENDORS FIG. 10

DEMOGRAPHICS ETHNICITY LANGUAGE ANNUAL INCOME

ASIAN (43%) ENGLISH (51%) 0-20K (48%) LATINO/ HISPANIC (28%) CHINESE (32%) 20-40K (21%) WHITE (12%) SPANISH (19%) 40-60K (29%) BLACK/ AFRICAN AMERICAN (8%) 60K+ (7%) MIXED RACE (2%)

= 5% OF PEOPLE SURVEYED Finding 4 – Low-cost Businesses During the visioning sessions, residents explained in greater detail what they would want these low cost Sports and Recreation businesses to look like and why they were important The types of businesses that most people for their community. Survey respondents indicated the wanted to see on the waterfront are small “A recreation that they prefer the following businesses as part of sports and recreation vendors. These would center is needed, the development: especially for include bike, skate and boating rentals. teens. They can be Participants in the visioning sessions stressed an alternative to that these businesses should stay affordable gangs.” and that they should only charge a small fee for 30% 29% rentals. A common theme was that people did Cafes and Coffee Shops not want to pay for access to sports such as Sports and Recreation basketball, handball or fishing. Overall, people were firmly against the idea of paying fees to access a gym or sports facility (such as Basketball City). 25% attan Brid “Recreation anh ge centers should be Carts, Kiosks, and Vendors t M FIG. 11 a et on a sliding scale rk a or comparable to m city recreation le b centers.” a Carts, Kiosks and Vendors t

e

g e Small cart vendors also received support from people V at the visioning sessions. People said that these types of business could provide a number of different goods such as prepared food, fresh produce and souvenirs. Participants overwhelmingly wanted low cost, healthy food, from vendors rather than pricey, “We need a farmers sit-down restaurants. People also wanted a place to market because the supermarkets have buy low-cost groceries and many mentioned lack of terrible produce and access to quality supermarkets. Many people also baked goods in this said that they wanted a green market for fruits and neighborhood.” vegetables. Finding 5

No High-end Development “We need fewer franchises and Community residents DO more mom and pop shops so NOT want high-end retail or small businesses aren’t displaced” “Vegas on th commercial development on the e H ud so n ” East River Waterfront. D e v e

l Survey respondents and visioning participants generally felt that retail o

p

shops do not belong on the waterfront, particularly big, brand name m

e

n

or “big box” stores. Residents feel that these types of retail stores t

p

r

o

are not affordable to them and do not cater to their needs or tastes. k

r

p

a

o

P s

Visioning session participants cited the South Street Seaport as an r

a

e

l

v f

i

o

R

r

example of the type of development they do not want to see on the P n

i o e

s r

d

4 u 0

H

i East River Waterfront. Visioning participants shared their views on the n development of high-end retail stores. helsea Pier C s Pri Residents also explained that high- vat e G end retail stores would speed up ym “Shopping does C o the process of gentrification that is not work on the m already displacing long time residents waterfront. Look at p le x the failure of South and making the neighborhood o

n

St. Seaport. It would unaffordable and unlivable. t h

also hurt Chinatown e

H

businesses.” u

d

s

o

n

R

i v “We don’t want e

name brand big r stores around here that would contribute to gentrification.” The predominant concerns shared by community residents Finding 6 about the development of the East River Waterfront include Concerns gentrification and displacement of long time residents, lack of affordability, lack of community input in the development While development of the ERW has process and the safety of the community. Through the community visioning sessions, residents shared their much potential and shows promise, concerns and why they have them. gas o “Ve n the Hu many residents still have serious ds Gentrification and Displacement o n ” Over the last few years gentrification in the areas surrounding D concerns about affordability, e the East River Waterfront has increased precipitously. As v e l o accessibility and safety. a result, many long time businesses and residents have p m been displaced. Residents fear that the development along

e SURVEY RESULTS:

n

t SURVEY RESULTS: the ERW will continue the trend of displacement of local

PRIORITIES FOR BUSINESS p

r

o k

r CONCERNS residents and businesses. Participants at the visioning p

a

o

P s

r

a sessions commented on displacement as a major concern

e

l

v f

i

o

R

r

P

n for their neighborhood:

i o e

s r

d 4 u 0

H i n INCREASED GENTRIFICATION “Increased gentrification and displacement are my AND LUXURY main concerns. We already LACK OF CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT have people who come in DIVERSITY IN (43%) here and if they build luxury PROGRAMMING (31%) on the waterfront we will be displaced because high-end SAFETY AND people feel entitled to take over SECURITY the neighborhood. We would (51%) lose cultural diversity in the neighborhood and have nowhere “I’m afraid of shopping to go, because nowhere in the INCREASED city is affordable anymore.” DISPLACEMENT centers and exclusive (43%) restaurants, anything that LACK OF LOW might bring in upper-class COST PROGRAMS, people and make us feel like we are not wanted SERVICES AND anymore. We have to be ACTIVIITES very careful about what (48%) businesses we bring into FIG. 12 this community.”

DEMOGRAPHICS ETHNICITY ASIAN (43%) LANGUAGE ANNUAL INCOME LATINO/ HISPANIC (28%) WHITE (12%) ENGLISH (51%) 0-20K (48%) BLACK/ AFRICAN AMERICAN (8%) CHINESE (32%) 20-40K (21%) MIXED RACE (2%) SPANISH (19%) 40-60K (29%) 60K+ (7%)

= 5% OF PEOPLE SURVEYED Finding 6 – Concerns Affordability

Along with displacement, maintaining the affordability of the “We want to see waterfront is a major concern for community residents. They vendors and very felt that it is important to keep the atmosphere of the waterfront inexpensive things welcoming to the residents of the neighborhood. Specifically, that low income they wanted to see businesses that would be affordable to the people can afford.” low-income community that surrounds the ERW. Even more Ren derin than keeping goods and services affordable, our respondents’ g o f t emphasized that they were concerned about keeping rents he “Most of the housing N affordable. Residents voiced the following concerns: e along the river is low- w income housing; I am S e concerned that the a p development will impact o r t this housing.” “Small and local P

r

businesses need o p

to have access to o s

commercial space.” a

l

S

h

o

p

Safety A

r

c

h

i

t e

c

t A more general concern people have is one of safety. s People at the visioning workshops were concerned “Safety and about police harassment of low-income people. If gentrification are the two the waterfront was designed and included uses biggest concerns. We only accessible for higher income people, it could want the waterfront to deter low-income people who would also visit the be for everyone. Like for waterfront. The development of the waterfront would me, I am poor but I still want to be able to use also lead to an increase of pedestrians. People were the waterfront.” also concerned about increased traffic and physical safety when crossing the street. At the visioning sessions residents voiced the following concerns: Finding 7 Community Power in Decision Making

Residents feel that they have “One of my main concerns is whatever limited ability to give input to and gets built in the space will determine who participate in making decisions comes there and who gets to benefit from the about the City’s development space. If the development causes the rent to go up, plans for the waterfront. gentrification is getting everyone and it is getting Many people expressed the feeling that the city was not taking worse and worse.” into account the voices and the needs of the communities O.U.R . Wate who live closest to the waterfront. Instead they feel that the rfro nt city is trying to target the development of the waterfront tow n towards tourists and other New Yorkers who don’t live in the ha l neighborhood. Residents voiced the following concerns: l m e e t in g “The city is not considering what the people that live in the area want and are concerned about.”

VI. The People’s Development Plan

Utilizing the research findings, the OUR Waterfront Coalition, with the assistance of the Pratt Center for Community Development, has created a financial analysis of 3 different options for development. Each option includes the uses that were prioritized by community residents throughout the visioning process. The options propose development of these uses on piers 35,36 and 42. For each option we have conducted in depth research on funding sources, including federal, state and city resources as well as revenue to be generated from small businesses. We have developed capital and operating budgets as well as proposed models for management and governance. FIG. 13 Site Analysis NORTH building onPier36,apubliclyowned space. This graphic indicates thesheerscaleof theshed RELATIVE SCALEOF PIER36

LENGTH OF SHED BUILDING PIER 36 - 1075 FEET

HEIGHT OF EMPIRE STATE BUILDING - 1250 FEET FIG. 14 RELATIVE SCALE OF PIER 36

FDR ELEVATED

FDR AT GROUND LEVEL PIER 42

PEDESTRIAN FOOTBRIDGE PIER 36 PIER 35 greenway. orsouthviathe north, accessible from the means Pier42isonly in East River Park, this footbridges north further waterfront except for no crossings to the to grade level, with The FDRDecends At Montgomery Street, physically and visually. waterfront isblocked Pier 36access to the waterfront. Except at access onfoot to the this allows for FDR Drive iselevated, 35 andPier36,The esplanade andPier of waterfront the Along thelength East River Park between Pier35and no waterfront access Pier 36.There iscurrently with vehicles entering encountering conflicts along Southstreet and cyclists to move pedestrians, joggers, of thegreenway forces The current configuration Option 1: Open Space with some indoor Recreational and Sports Activities All existing structures on the piers would be demolished and most of A the site would be used for open space. The site would include… B A Greenway Shared running path/bikeway that connects to East River Park B River Pool An urban amenity that filters river water to form a pool for local residents to swim in. The river pool could double as an environmental classroom and a community swimming pool that residents of all incomes could utilize. C C Multi-use courts Because of the need for free or low-cost recreation areas, courts that could be used for basketball, tennis, volleyball, etc, should be constructed. D Parking Lot D Small parking lot: due to resident’s concerns about the safety of a large parking lot , a small parking lot would be installed to ensure E access to the site and reduce car traffic. E Esplanade F F Recreation Center This would be an enclosed structure to provide space for year round, free or low-cost sports and recreation activities for the public, including basketball courts, indoor soccer, indoor supervised play space for younger children and toddlers, and chess and mah jong clubs. G G Inlet with Direct water access H via “get-downs” for fishing, kayaking, and other water sports, as well as a running path that would connect to the northern East River Park. . H Flexible Open Space Open plaza for performances, events, vendors and markets: A place for open-air installations such as farmers’ markets, vendors’ carts, and outdoor events would be landscaped into the site. I I Pier 35 would remain as EDC’s current development plan Mostly pen space; landscaped with grass, seating areas, and “get- NORTH downs” to the waterfront. FIG. 15 Option 2: Mixed Use including Basketball City on pier 36 A Greenway B Relocated Sanitation Shed A All sanitation programs should be relocated to a new structure adjacent to the FDR on Pier 42 to maximize the park acreage accessible to patrons walking under the FDR at Pier 36. C Large Parking Lot B D River Pool E Community Center The sanitation shed on Pier 36 would be repurposed into smaller buildings two of them would house a multi-use community center, complete with offices for local nonprofits, educational C programs, job training programs, translation services and other D community-appropriate activities. The existing roof would extend over new outdoor open spaces E F Covered open spaces Flexible open spaces that could be an area for a farmers’ market to sell low-cost, healthy foods; be used for F performances or other large gatherings. These areas would be covered by a green roof structure that would collect rainwater. E G Inlet with direct water access G H Basketball City H While the OUR Waterfront coalition opposes an expensive sports facility, we understand that development of Basketball City is likely to move forward. We maintain, however, that we F would prefer free or extremely low-cost recreational facilities so as to be accessible to the entire community. I Pier 35 would remain as EDC’s current development plan I

NORTH j “Planted Wall” in EDC’s Pier 35 plan FIG. 16 Existing Piers

A

B D C E F E

G H

F

J

I

A

FIG. 17 Option 3: Mixed Use without Basketball City This option is a mixture of the first, but does not take into account the possibility of C Basketball City. No vehicular traffic would be allowed into the park. A A Greenway B Multi-use courts Because of the need for free or low-cost recreation areas, courts that could be used for basketball, tennis, volleyball, etc, B should be constructed. C River Pool D Community Center The sanitation shed on Pier 36 would be repurposed into smaller buildings two of them would house a multi-use community center, complete with offices for local nonprofits, educational programs, job training programs, translation services and other community-appropriate activities. D E Flexible Open Spaces These spaces could be an area for a farmers’ market to sell low-cost, E healthy foods, be used for performances or other large gatherings F D Inlet F G Space for environmental education or community gardens In keeping with the focus on open space, this area would G provide a forum for community residents to interact with each other and their surroundings on the waterfront. H Park maintenance bldg and Restrooms I Pier 35 would remain as EDC’s current development plan H mostly open space; landscaped with grass, seating areas, I and “get-downs” to the waterfront.

NORTH J “Planted Wall” in EDC’s Pier 35 plan FIG. 18 Option 3 was overwhelming supported by participants at the O.U.R. Waterfront town hall.

A C B

D E D F

G

H J Existing Piers I

A

FIG. 19 Capital and Operating Budgets for Each Option: Overview and Assumptions We have created basic proformas, or development and operating budgets, for each of the three options in the People’s Plan (see appendix). These figures help to understand the basic financial requirements for development and operation of each of the three options presented in this section. Each of the development options includes a uses of funds schedule. The pier remediation, marine work, bike path creation and open space creation figures were taken from investigative work completed by EDC and related agencies. Development costs for the community center are line-itemed, and a separate development budget for the community center can be found in the appendix. Development cost estimates for sports facilities and parking are based on industry standards for comparable facilities in the region. For options 2 and 3, the development plan anticipates a roughly 41,000 square foot community facility. The financial proformas assume that this facility is made available for public purpose uses. These uses would include non-profit and small business tenancies, including income-generating rentals, which would support private debt or bond leverage. How a community park can be built for $55,133,369

Construction of Community Facility Cost of EDC vs. People’s Plans 41,580 sq. ft. The Lower Manhattan Development Construction of $13,575,000 Corporation has allocated $138 million Sports Fields in capital budget alone for its East River 37,209 sq. ft. Waterfront Project. As of June 2009, the $630,000 EDC had spent $38.5 million of those funds. In contrast, the People’s Plan’s total capital budget and operating costs for Pier Infrastructure Work Construction of Demolition of Sheds one year stands at $55,133,369. That’s a Bike/Running Path Open Space creation difference of $82,866,631 – meaning that 238,064 sq. ft. the difference between the two budgets $608,119 $34,719,125 is more than the entirety of the People’s Plan’s allocation for both capital and operating expenses. Fig. 20 Operating Expenses for the People’s Plan Operating expenses in each of the options use industry averages to project capital maintenance and operating costs based on the size and use included in each of the development options. Each of the options also includes the establishment and operation of a non-profit oversight and management organization, such as a Local Development Corporation. In each of the expense portions of the options attached, an LDC management line item has been included. Also included is a development staff line, which would fund senior and support staff for a fundraising department which would be required to generate proposals for foundation and corporate development and annual operating support. There is a leasing marketing and advertising staff line item, anticipating that the earned income portions of the budget will require seasoned professional marketing and leasing staff to generate reliable income, and to manage facilities maintenance and expenses (see appendix).

Income: Sources of Funding for the People’s Development Plan In each of the development options, the sources of funds schedule assume reliance on multiple sources of public, private and earned income funds. Government Capital Support Government capital support for any of the options described in this section could come from multiple sources. This is because these projects include many public purpose elements, ranging from open space, youth programming and recreation, health, marine life cultivation and appreciation, community development, small business enterprise and job creation. Therefore, the proformas (see appendix) include select sources of public sector capital support. Each source of funds schedule includes the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC) capital allocation which has been earmarked for the Lower Eastside Waterfront Development. The capital amounts included in the proformas are actually less than the total LMDC allocation, indicating that these current proposals, because they are more public in nature, could draw capital funding from many other sources, other than the LMDC allocation. Other public sources include council delegation capital allocation, a source of funds which could reasonably be relied on for a project of this scale, magnitude and multi district positive impact. The project also anticipates capital funding from the Manhattan Borough Presidents office, and federal earmarks from the relevant congressional delegation. In addition to some of the capital sources suggested here, there are many agency related capital budget items which could be considered for any of the options being contemplated. These range from programs which are promoted by New York City Economic and Business Development Agencies, Youth and Child Development Departments, Parks & Recreation and Ports and Trade. At the State level, all the options here would potentially fit into agency programs from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, The Empire State Development Corporation, The New York State Department of Coastal Management and other State Health, Human Services and Child Development Agencies and State Parks and Conservancy Programs. Lastly, the same holds true for the Federal Government. Agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services, among others are all candidates for funding the capital required to realize any of the options in the People’s Plan.

Foundation and Corporate Support The development options reflected in the plans and proformas contain many elements which would fit squarely into the capital and operating support programs offered by multiple private foundations, corporate philanthropies and private sector public affairs campaigns. All three options in the People’s Development plan include sports, recreation, health and community development aspects which are likewise potentially attractive to multiple sources of foundation and corporate giving. A few samples are described below. The Bloomberg Corporate giving program has corporate and employee matching gift programs which support parks & playgrounds, capital, maintenance and ongoing operations. Gift ranges have run as high as $250,000 per project. The Carl Icahn Foundation funds one time capital campaigns and ongoing support for all sorts of recreation and education facilities; contributions for projects have included planning and hard cost funds ranging from $5,000 to over $1 million per project. The Home Depot foundation has a program sometimes referred to as the Alliance for Community Trees. This programs supports community based urban forestry. Earned Income On the earned income front, sources of income include daily stall rentals to farmers for a local farmers market, license and lease income from the rental of marine and land communication equipment, sale of signage and advertising rights, rentals from events and corporate sponsorships. Also, each of the earned income options assumes net operating income from the rental of community recreational facilities or net operating income from the operation of the fully developed community center. Nonprofit or Public Ownership and Management OUR Waterfront coalition recommends that either a non-profit, or governmental entity should manage the new public spaces to be developed along the East River Waterfront.

Public Management Under this plan, City governance of the site would continue, meaning the City, under the Department of Parks and recreation would continue to fund annual management and maintenance. The benefit of this style of governance would be that this would lower costs and ensure higher accountability to the surrounding public. Examples of where this structure has worked include...

Concrete Plant Park: A Case Study Concrete Plant Park The OUR Waterfront Coalition’s decision to pursue a public management style for the East River Waterfront is not without precedence. In 1999, New York City was planning on selling an abandoned concrete plant in the Bronx to a private developer. A coalition of community groups organized and fought back, and in September 2009, Concrete Plant Park opened as a public

park. Concrete Plant Park is part of the Bronx River photo: The Architect’s Newspaper Greenway, a planned “necklace of green” that will eventually be a continuous strip of park along the Bronx River. The Bronx River Greenway, and thus Concrete Plant Park, is managed by a hybrid of the Bronx River Alliance, a local community coalition, and the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation. This ensures accountability to the local community and ensures that residents can give input about the programming and maintenance of the park. West Harlem Piers photo: NYC Parks & Recreation Non-Profit Management For a non-profit entity, a Local Development Corporation (LDC), would be the most effective management path LDC’s carry many benefits such as: they are tax exempt, eligible for valuable non-governmental funding, and are membership organizations, which allow the stakeholders to participate in governance. As an added bonus, they’ve been proven to work well in recent years, with some examples being the Brooklyn Bridge Park LDC and the Bryant Park LDC. Although continuing fundraising would be necessary to cover such expenses as liability insurance, salaries, overhead, and on-going maintenance, this obstacle could be sidestepped by contracting with the City to cover these costs which the City would otherwise have to assume. In this way, the financial obligations are of very little concern to the LDC because the City provides the funding for infrastructure as if it were a City responsibility, and the LDC is still able to reap all the benefits of being a non-profit organization.

West Harlem Piers: A Case Study19 Today, West Harlem Piers Park is a two-acre waterfront park featuring brand-new recreational piers, paths for bicycles and pedestrians, landscaped open space, and access to the Hudson River. But it wasn’t always that way. In 1998 the NYC EDC had a plan to develop the park, including erecting high-rise hotels, jazz clubs, luxury condos and other commercial space. Community residents felt these plans were inappropriate and not beneficial to the community at large. Residents felt alienated from the decision-making process and cut off from the development taking place in their own neighborhood. In response, Harlem residents worked with WE ACT to create a community visioning process very similar to that of the OUR Waterfront Coalition. Harlem River Piers Park opened in May 2009 and due to the collective organizing efforts of Harlem residents, many of the residents’ dreams were made into reality. The West Harlem Piers Park is a good model for the NYC EDC to follow in developing the funding strategies and management structure for the East River Waterfront. While the Harlem park is owned by the NYC EDC, it is managed by the local community board and the Harlem Waterfront Council. The Council is a non-profit organization created by the community board. It is responsible for the maintenance and programming of the park and includes a governing board of 15 community based organizations, community boards, educational institutions, and businesses based in the area. The council ensures that the community has a say in how their park is run. This fusion between the city’s EDC and local management boards would be a very effective way for the future of the East River Waterfront to remain in the hands of residents of the Lower East Side and Chinatown. This management style would also ensure continued funding – Harlem River Piers Park is funded by state grants and capital investments from the city, the state, the Upper Manhattan Empowerment Zone and the New York State Parks Office. IV. Shortfalls and Negative Consequences of the EDC Plan

Aerial Photograph of Piers 35 and 36 Using the money allocated from HUD to the LMDC, the NYEDC has not been able to satisfactorily develop a plan that is both beneficial to the community most impacted, and accountable to the community at large. For the most part, the EDC’s planning has taken place without wide-spread community support or approval. From the recent removal of community use pavilions to an ongoing dispute regarding a community use agreement with Basketball City, community voices have not been heard. Today, the East River Waterfront continues to be underutilized and undeveloped. Pier 35 and 42 stand vacant and in a state of disrepair and pier 36, continues to be occupied by the City Sanitation department along with other city agencies. The NYC Economic Development Corporation (EDC) Plan vs. The People’s Plan The chart below compares the main components, costs and processes of the EDC and the People’s Plan and highlights which of the community’s priorities the EDC plan overlooks.

Shortfalls and What’s EDC’s Original Plan People’s Plan Missing from EDC’s Plans Total Capital $138,000,000 $52,031,369 > EDC plan will cost Budget (LMDC Funds for Develop- $85,968,631 more than ment of Community Uses) People’s Plan*

Pavilions Two community use pavil- Top three desires are > Development has stalled ions to be built at Peck Slip active use, a community health center, > No indication when the and an anti-eviction EDC plans to resume building center or what will be built

New plantings, seating and Free recreation space, > No educational/cultural Esplanade lighting and a dedicated places to sunbathe and opportunities bikeway BBQ, and spaces for educational and cultural > No BBQ sites opportunities

*One of the main differences was that people in the visioning sessions didn’t prioritize on the esplanade improvements for which the city is allocating $85 million. Instead of focusing on esplanade, the city should invest money in what the community has prioritized. Shortfalls and What’s EDC’s Original Plan People’s Plan Missing from EDC’s Plans Pier 42 Reinforcement of the pier The shed on Pier 42 would > No community center and demolition of the be demolished and open pier’s existing structures space with ball courts and > No space for social to make way for playgrounds would be services or free recreation Temporary commercial created in its place space Combination educational Open grassy area > EDC has revised plans to Pier 35 space and restaurant make pier 35 entirely open, green space > This would adhere to the People’s Plan Basketball City, the for- Most of the shed on Pier > The EDC calls for an expen- Pier 36 / profit, privately owned 36 would be demolished, sive gym Basketball gym will be the focal but parts of it would be City point of the redeveloped transformed into a multi- > The People’s Plan pier purpose community center. prioritizes low or no cost Open plazas for farmers’ services and programs markets and vendors’ carts would also be created

The EDC’s planning has The OUR Waterfront The EDC... Process to taken place without coalition distributed 800 > Has prioritized high end Develop Plan community input or surveys to community commercial development over approval. The city’s members, conducted community uses official plan for the three visioning sessions, > Has not gathered waterfront does not held a town hall meeting, information on what residents reflect residents’ needs and completed a financial would like to see on their own and priorities analysis based on the waterfront community’s vision > Has not provided a forum for community voices to be heard

O.U.R. Waterfront Policy Recomendations

Based on the data collected through the visioning process and the analysis of the current EDC plan, the OUR Waterfront Coalition recommends that the NYC Economic Development Corporation, Mayor and City Council make the policy changes listed on the following pages. Overall Recommendation > EDC and the Mayor should implement the People’s Plan for development of the East River Waterfront, detailed in option three on page 40. Management and Governance > All public and community space that is developed along the east river waterfront, including on pier 42, 35, and 36, should be managed by a partnership between a Non-Profit a Local Development Corporation (LDC) and the NYC department of Parks and Recreation. Transparency, Accountability and Community Input > All RFP’s for the development of the Piers should be based on the information and results from the community’s visioning process that are documented in the People’s Plan.

> All spending related to the waterfront should be transparent and information should be publicly available. > The city should allocate more funding to Community Boards specifically for Board members and staff to conduct outreach to individuals and groups in the community to develop a comprehensive and collective response to development plans. Funding and Commercial Uses > Funds allocated from the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC) for the development of the East River waterfront should be used to build a community and recreation center on Pier 42 or Pier 36.

> All commercial uses on the piers should be consistent with the community’s preference and should include only small businesses with low-cost goods and not high-end, large-scale commercial projects. Basketball City >EDC should modify its lease with basketball city to include all the provisions outlined in a community benefits agreement between Basketball City, Inc. and the community.

> EDC should examine projected profits of Basketball City to determine how a portion of these profits could be utilized to support the maintenance and operation of community uses on the waterfront.

> A Pier 36 oversight Advisory Board, composed of representatives from private and public tenant associations, community based organizations, and Community Board 3 should be established to monitor and oversee a community benefits agreement between Basket ball city and the above mentioned community entities. Endnotes 1. “State of the City,” Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy. Web. 5 October 2009. http://furmancenter.org/files/soc2008/State_of_the_City_2008.pdf 2. “Mayor Bloomberg Unveils Plans for East River Waterfront,” Lower Manhattan Development Corporation. Web. 5 October 2009. http://www.renewnyc.com/displaynews.aspx?newsid=bc1346ca-ddb8-43ad-a97b-b367e292d461 3. Department of City Planning, “Transforming the East River Waterfront” concept plan. Released June 2, 2005. Published by the City of New York. 4. Contract between Lower Manhattan Development Corporation and the City, Schedule A-6 and Exhibit A-2. 5. Lease between Basketball City, Inc. and the City of New York, p.22 6. Department of City Planning, “Transforming the East River Waterfront” concept plan. Released June 2, 2005. Published by the City of New York. 7. Meeting with EDC 4/29 8. Department of City Planning, “Transforming the East River Waterfront” concept plan. Released June 2, 2005. Published by the City of New York. 9. Review of contracts between LMDC and NYC 10. “Today in Waterfront News: East River Waterfront Esplanade Groundbreaking,” New York Future Initiative. Web. 5 October 2009. http://nyfi.observer.com/planning-development/424/today-waterfront-news-east-river-waterfront-esplanade-groundbreaking 11. Department of City Planning, “Transforming the East River Waterfront” concept plan. Released June 2, 2005. Published by the City of New York. 12. Review of contracts between EDC and NYC 13. Meeting with EDC 4/29 14. Department of City Planning, “Transforming the East River Waterfront” concept plan. Released June 2, 2005. Published by the City of New York. 15. Review of contracts between EDC and NYC 16. Meeting with EDC 4/29 17. Lease between Basketball City, Inc., and the City of New York. 18. “Basketball City on Our Waterfront,” Two Bridges Neighborhood Council. Web. 5 October 2009. http://www.twobridges.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=89&Itemid=107 19. “Making a Community Vision Real,” We Act for Environmental Justice. Web. 5 October 2009. http://www.weact.org/Portals/7/Harlem%20on%20the%20River-Making%20a%20Community%20Vision%20Real.pdf Appendices Appendix 1 : O.U.R. Waterfront Survey (English/Chinese/Spanish) Appendix 2: Visioning Activity: A day at the waterfront Appendix 3: Budget proformas, Operating / Capital for People’s Plan Option 3 Budget for Community Center Appendix 4: Letter between CB3 and Basketball City 1. What are the most important issues facing OUR Waterfront continued Chinatown and the Lower East Side? Please Question 3. East River Waterfront Survey check all that apply:  Social services ______ Safety and security  Arts and cultural space ______ Affordability:  Commercial/retail opportunities______Please fill out this survey to help us document  Housing  Food  Retail  Services  Employment/ job creation ______community preferences for development of the East  Pollution and cleanliness River waterfront. This survey is completely voluntary,  Displacement  Transportation ______confidential and anonymous. If you would like to know  Policing  Open space ______the results of this survey and be informed of related  Gentrification  Other ______follow-up activities, please include your contact  Homelessness information. Personal information will be kept separate  Other ______(please specify) 4. The city’s current plan includes space for from survey answers and will be used only to provide stores and businesses. Do you think there should you with information about East River Waterfront 2. Do you currently go to the East River be businesses and retail shops on the East River Development and activities that might interest you. Waterfront? Yes No Waterfront? Thank you for your time and collaboration! A. If Yes, what do you do there?  Yes  No  I Don’t know  Recreational activities:______(please specify) If Yes, what types of businesses and retail shops  Dog walking would you prefer to see along the waterfront? Please check all that apply: If you would like further information about  Fishing waterfront development along the East River, please  Educational activities Type of Provided By: Price Range of provide us with your contact information:  Other ______(please specify) Business Goods:  Full service  Local small  Free B. If No, why not ?______restaurants businesses Name:  Low-cost  Cafes and coffee  Large national ______ Mid-range shops chain stores  High-end Address:  Carts, kiosks,  Street vendors The City of New York has issued a plan to develop and vendors  Other______the two miles along East River Waterfront from  Other______(please specify)  Bars and clubs (please specify) Phone: the Battery to East River Park encompassing the financial district, the South Street Seaport,  Big box stores, i.e. Home Depot, Chinatown, and the Lower East Side. The following Target questions refer to your preferences for development Email:  Retail along the new East River Waterfront.  Entertainment I am interested in: 3. What services, activities, and programs do  Sports and rec- D Learning more about development along the East you think should be included on the new East reation River Waterfront River Waterfront ? Please check all that apply and  None D Becoming more involved with OUR Waterfront provide specific examples:  Other______Note: Contact information will not be associated  Recreational activities______(please specify) with any of your survey answers and will be used  Educational activities ______strictly to provide you with follow up information.  Information services ______5. What would be a reasonable amount of Demographic Information ORGANIZING AND money for one person to spend on activities Note: This information is strictly confidential and or services at the new East River collected only to ensure a diverse survey sample. Your UNITING R ESIDENTS Waterfront? (i.e. What is “affordable” for responses will not be connected to any other questions one person to pay for activities or services or personal information. ON THE E AST R IVER such as kayaking, entertainment, etc.?) Gender:  M  F  TG/TS Please check all that apply: WATERFRONT Age : ______ Free  Less than $5 Zip Code where you live: ______OUR Waterfront Coalition  $5-$10 Asian Americans for Equality (AAFE) • Race/ Ethnicity:  $10-$15 CAAAV Chinatown Tenants Union (CTU) •  $15-$20  Asian Good Old Lower East Side (GOLES) • Hester Street Collaborative • Lower East  More than $20  Latino/Hispanic Side Ecology Center • Public Housing  Black/African-American  Other______(please specify) Residents of the Lower East Side

 White (PHROLES) • University Settlement • 6. What are your concerns about  Mixed Race: ______(please specify) Urban Justice Center (UJC) development along the East River Waterfront and the impact on the larger What is your annual household income level? community? Please check all that apply:  $10,000 or less  $50,001-$60,000 O.U.R. Waterfront is a coalition of community-based organizations and tenant  Safety and security  $10,001-$20,000  $60,001-$70,000 associations representing residents of the  Lack of cultural diversity in programming  $20,001-$30,000  more than $70,001 Lower East Side and Chinatown who are  Lack of low cost programs services and activities  $30,001-$40,000 organizing to make sure that development  Increased displacement along the East River waterfront serves the

needs of the diverse communities that live  Lack of community input in what will happen What is your primary language?  Increased gentrification and luxury development closest to it, especially those who are at most  English  Other ______(please specify) risk of displacement, including low-income  Spanish people, people of color, and immigrant 7. Who should development along the East  Chinese communities. We believe the community must be central to the decision-making River Waterfront benefit the most? Please  Other:______(please specify ) process for the development and check one response: What is your relationship to the East River management of their waterfront.  Local community members (residents of the Waterfront and the Chinatown and Lower East Lower East Side and Chinatown) East River Waterfront Redevelopment Area  All New York City residents Side communities? Please check all that apply :  Tourists  I live in the area  Other______(please specify)  I work in the area  I have a business in the area  I go to school in the area  Other______(please specify)

Thank you for your participation in this survey! Source: http://www.nyc.gov OUR Waterfront 1. Cuales son las cuestiones más importantes 3. Cont. Marque para Chinatown y el Lower East Side?  Servicios Sociales______Encuesta de la Orilla del Río Este todas las que apliquen:  Espacio para eventos culturares y artes______ Seguridad  Accesibilidad Financiera a:  Espacio comercial y venta al por menor______Por favor ayúdenos a llenar esta encuesta para poder documentar las preferencias de la comunidad Vivienda Comida  Tiendas Servicios  Empleo y creación de empleos______en el desarrollo de la Orilla del Río Este. Esta  Polución y limpieza  Transportación______ El desplace encuesta es completamente voluntaria, confidencial  Espacio libre______y anónima. Si esta interesado/a en saber el resultado  Seguridad policial  Otra: ______de esta encuesta y mantenerse informado/a, por  Gentrification favor incluya su información para comunicarnos  Personas sin vivienda con usted. La información personal se mantendrá 4. El plan actual de la ciudad incluye espacio  Otra:______(especifique) para tiendas y negocios. Piensa usted que separada de las respuestas de la encuesta y será usada solamente para proveerle información sobre debería haber tiendas y negocios en la Orilla del 2. Visita usted actualmente la Orilla del Río el desarrollo y actividades de la Orilla del Río Este. Río Este? Este? Si No  Si  No  No se Gracias por su tiempo y colaboración! A. Si su respuesta es si, que es lo que usted hace Si su respuesta es si, que clase de tiendas y ahí? negocios preferiría ver a lo largo de la Orilla del  Actividades de recreación: ______(especifique) Si usted quiere más información en el desarrollo de Río Este? Marque todas las que apliquen: la Orilla del Río Este, por favor demos la  Lleva a su perro a caminar  Pesca Tipo de Proporcionado Precios de información necesaria para poder contactarlo/a: Negocio: por: servicios Nombre:  Actividades educacionales deberían ser:

 Otra ______(especifique)  Servicio  Pequeños  Gratis completo de negocios locales B. Si su respuesta es no, porque no? Restaurante  Bajo costo Dirección: ______ Tiendas de  Cafes y cadenas nacionales  Costo moderado ______pequeños negocios  Vendedores  Costo alto La ciudad de Nueva York a publicado un plan para el de café Teléfono: ambulantes  Otro: ______desarrollo de las dos millas a lo largo de la Orilla del  Kioscos, puestos (Especifique) Río Este desde Battery hasta el parque del Río Este y vendedores  Otro: ______(Especifique) abarcando el distrito financiero, South Street Seaport,  Barras y clubs Correo Electrónico: Chinatown, y el Lower East Side. Las siguientes preguntas se refieren a su preferencia para el desarrollo  Tiendas grandes (como Home Estoy interesado/a en: a lo largo de la Orilla del Río Este. Depot, Target) ‡ Saber más sobre el desarrollo de la Orilla del Río 3. Que servicios, actividades y programas piensa  Tiendas de Este usted que deberían ser incluidas en la nueva venta al por menor ‡ Ser parte de Organizando y Uniendo a los Orilla del Río Este? Por favor marque todas las que  Entretenimiento Residentes de la Orilla del Río Este (O.U.R.) apliquen y especifique ejemplos:  Deportes y Nota: Información de contacto no será asociada  Actividades de recreación ______recreación con las respuestas de la encuesta y será utilizada  Actividades educacionales______ Ningún solamente para enviarle información.  Otro: ______ Servicios de información ______(Especifique) 5. Cual seria el gasto razonable que una Información Demográfica ORGANIZANDO Y persona pague por actividades y servicios en Nota: Esta información es estrictamente confidencial y la nueva Orilla del Río Este? (Que es “barato colectada para asegurar una encuesta diversa. Su UNIENDO A LOS o economico” para una persona poder pagar respuesta no será conectada a ninguna otra pregunta o por actividades o servicios como por ejemplo: información personal. RESIDENTES DE LA entretenimiento, Kayaking, etc.?) Marque todas las que apliquen: Sexo:  H  F  TG/TS ORILLA DEL RÍO ESTE  Gratis Edad: ______Nuestra Coalición de la Orilla del Río Este  Menos de $5. Zona Postal de donde vive: ______Asian Americans for Equality (AAFE) •  $5. $10. CAAAV Chinatown Tenants Union (CTU) •  $10. $15. Raza / Ethnicidad :  $15. $20. Good Old Lower East Side (GOLES) •  Asiático/a  Mas de $20. Hester Street Collaborative • Lower East  Latino / Hispano Side Ecology Center • Public Housing  Otro: ______(especifique)  Negro / AfricanoAmericano/a Residents of the Lower East Side  Anglosajón (PHROLES) • University Settlement • 6. Cuales son sus preocupaciones sobre el Urban Justice Center (UJC) desarrollo de la Orilla del Río Este y el  Mezcla: ______(especifique) impacto a la comunidad? Marque todas las que apliquen: Cual es su ingreso anual? Organizando y Uniendo a los Residentes de la Orilla del Río Este es una coalición  Accesibilidad financiero de programas, servicios  $10,000 o menos  $50,001 $60,000 organizaciones comunitarias y asociaciones de y actividades  $10,001 $20,000  $60,001 $70,000 inquilinos representando a los residentes de  Seguridad Lower East Side y Chinatown quienes se están  $20,001 $30,000  Más de $70,001  Carecer de diversos programas culturares organizando para asegurar que el desarrollo de  Carecer de programas y servicios a bajos precios  $30,001 $40,000 la Orilla del Río Este sirva las necesidades de

 Aumentar el desplace las comunidades diversas que viven ahí y de aquellas cerca del Río Este, especialmente a  No tener suficiente aportación de la comunidad Cual es su lenguaje: en lo que pasara aquellos inquilinos que estarían en riesgo de ser  Aumentar el desplace de inquilinos y desarrollar  Ingles desplazados de sus hogares, incluyendo a proyectos de lujo  Español personas de bajos ingresos, personas de color, y  Otro:______(especifique)  Chino comunidades de inmigrantes. Creemos que la  Otro: ______(especifique) comunidad debe ser central en las decisiones 7. Quien debería beneficiarse más del que se tome el proceso para el desarrollo y la desarrollo de la Orilla del Río Este a lo Cual es su relación con las comunidades de la administración de la Orilla del Río Este. Orilla del Río Este, Chinatown y el Lower East largo? Marque solo una respuesta: Side? Marque todas las que apliquen: Zona di Desarollo de la Orilla del Río Este  Miembros de la comunidad local (Residentes del Lower East Side y de Chinatown)  Vivo en el área  Todos los residentes de la ciudad de Nueva York  Trabajo en el área  Turistas  Tengo negocio en el área  Otro: ______(especifique)  Voy a la escuela en el área  Otro: ______(especifique)

Gracias por su participación en esta encuesta! Source: http://www.nyc.gov 5. 在新東河邊, 一個人要在活動或服務上花上多少錢 人口統計資料

才算合理? 例如: 對一個人來說, 在例如划船, 娛樂等 注: 這些資料都是絕對保密的. 填寫這些資料的用意是 組織與聯合東河 的活動或服務上, 什麼價格才算是可負擔得起的? 請 為了確保能夠收集到不同實例的調查. 您的答案將不會 選擇所符合的答案: 與其他問題或個人資料有關聯. 水邊居民  免費的 性別:  男  女  雙性/變性  少於$5 我們的水邊聯盟::: 年齡: ______

 $5-$10

郵遞區號: ______亞洲平等會, 亞裔反暴力聯盟的住  $15-$20 客協會, 好下東城, Hester街協會,  $20 以上 種族: 亞洲人 白人  其他 (請具體一點 ) : ______  下東城環保中心, 下東城政府樓居  黑人/非裔  拉丁美洲人/西班牙人 民, 城市正義中心  混血 (請具體一點 ) : ______6. 關於發展東河邊, 您所關注的是哪些問題及認為哪

些問題會為社區帶來的響? 請選擇所符合的答案: 您一家的年收入是多少? 我們的水邊是一個基於社區組織和由代  安全  $10,000 或更少  $50,001-$60,000 表下東城與唐人街住客的住客協會的聯  缺乏文化多樣性的活動 盟以確保沿著東河水邊的發展是以住在  $10,001-$20,000  $60,001-$70,000  缺乏低收費的項目服務及活動  $20,001-$30,000  超過 $70,001 附近的低收入住客, 各個種族和移民社區  增加逼遷現象 的需求為主. 我們認為這些社區可以對  $30,001-$40,000  當發生什麼事時缺乏社區的意見

水邊的發展做出重要的決定和由他們來 增加貴族化及豪華發展  您的第一語言是什麼? 管理水邊。  其他 (請具體一點 ) : ______ 英文  中文

您跟東河邊, 唐人街及下東城有什麼關聯? 請選擇所符合的 7. 發展東河邊, 理當誰受益最大? 請選擇所符合的答案: 答案:  當地居民 (唐人街及下東城的居民 )  我在那裡居住  我在那裡上班  所有紐約市居民  遊客  我在那裡有生意  我在那裡上學

 其他 (請具體一點 ) : ______ 其他 (請具體一點 ) : ______

Source: http://www.nyc.gov 非常感謝您完成此問卷調查! 我們的水邊: 東河邊的問卷調查 2. 您現在有沒有去東河邊?  是  否 4. 現在市政府的計劃包括設有商店的地方. 您認為應該 在東河邊設有這些商店和零售業嗎? A. 如果有, 您在那裡都做些什麼? 請填寫這份問卷調查來幫助我們把社區人士對東河邊發展  是  否  我不知道 娛樂活動 (請具體一點 ) : 的意見紀錄下來. 這份調查是完全自願性的, 保密的及匿名  ______的. 如果您想知道這個調查的結果和獲悉有關活動的資料,  帶狗散步 如如如果如果果果是是是是,,,, 您您您想您想想想要要要要在在在在水水水水邊邊邊邊看看看看到到到到哪哪哪哪種種種種類類類類型型型型的的的的商商商商店店店店及及及及零零零零售售售售業業業業???? 請留下您的聯絡資料. 個人資料及問卷調查的答案將會分  釣魚 請選擇所符合的答案: 開, 而且個人資料只是讓我們向您提供有關東河邊發展及活  教育性的活動 商業種類:: 供應商 : 貨物價格 動.  其他 (請具體一點 ) : ______的範圍: 如果您想知道更多關於東河邊發展, 請留下您的聯絡資料:

B. 如果沒有, 那為何不去? ______服務完善的餐 姓名:   小商業  免費 ______館 地址:  連鎖店  低收費 咖啡店   小販  中等收費 電話: 小飯   其他 (請具體  高收費 電郵: 酒吧與俱樂部 市政府計劃在沿著東河邊發展, 從BatteryBattery到東河公園,到東河公園,  一點 ) : ______我有興趣於: 包括金融中心, 南港, 唐人街及下東城. 接下來的問題都  連鎖店 ______ 了解更多關於東河邊的發展 是有關您對新東河邊發展的想法.. 例如: Home Depot , Target  參與我們的水邊聯盟 3. 您認為新東河邊該要有哪些服務, 活動及項目? 請選  零售業 擇所符合的答案及給予具體的例子:  娛樂 1. 請問在唐人街和下東城, 哪些問題是最主要的? 請選  運動和消遣  娛樂活動 ______擇所符合的答案:  什麼都不是  教育性活動 ______ 其他 (請具體  安全  資料諮詢 ______一點 ) : ______ 負得起的:  社區服務 ______

 房屋  食物  零售業  服務  藝術與文化的地方 ______

污染和清潔  商業或零售業機會 ______  逼遷  職業或工作機會 ______

 警察  運輸 ______

 貴族化  開放式的場所 ______

 無家可歸的人  其他 ______

 其他 (請具體一點 ) : ______A DAY AT THE WATERFRONT... RECRE ND ATI A ON TS R WHAT FREE ACTIVITIES WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO? O WHERE WOULD YOU SPEND YOUR MONEY? PLACE A STICKER NEXT TO 3 OF THE IMAGES P IMAGINE YOU HAVE $10, PLACE A STICKER S NEXT TO 3 PLACES YOU’D SPEND IT SPA CATION PEN CE DU O D DINING E AN D tai c hi bb O q- O ing F

OCIAL S SE kiosks R g V in I ak C b kay c ts as afes uran

E ketball and resta S

s p

o sh rk o w ME TION TAIN NT A ER M OTHER ru T R : nni N O ng E F markets

N

I AN ARTS D C UL TU R E b ars con nts and bs

certs and eve clu

P u

M b HOPP

l S I

i N ov c G ie s A OT r H t E

R: d

i s c o u n t s to res

P e r fo ND REC rm A RE res a TS AT ox sto nc R I big b es O O P N S

r et ail s er nt ce recreation b ike rentals Option 3 - Development Budget Uses Square Feet Sources of Funds Our Estimates Community Center 41,580 Government Capital Support LMDC Funds $ 28,500,000 1 Basketball Courts 3 2,619 DOT $ 608,119 2 Canope Seating Area 12,256 NYS EPF $ 2,024,125 3 Tennis Courts 2 7,568 Council Capital Budget $ 2,000,000 4 Volleyball Courts 4,220 BP Capital Budget $ 1,250,000 5 Get Downs 2 10,546 Ag + Mks/HHS $ 1,500,000 6 Subtotal Community Sports/Recreation 37,209 NYS CFAP/Leg $ 1,347,125 7 Fed Earmark $ 2,000,000 Plazas 4 14,468 Government Subtotal$ 39,229,369 Green Space 306,788 Paved Paths 238,064 Foundation/Corporate Capital Support *see subsidiary schedule Parking 120 58,475 Private Foundation Playground Cap8 $ 750,000 Restrooms 4 2,000 Corporate Sponsorship Cap9 $ 600,000 10 Subtotal Other 619,795 Donor Capital Campaign $ 1,500,000 Foundation/Corporate Subtotal$ 2,850,000 Total Project 698,584 Debt/Bond Proceeds Community Center Mortgage Financing11 $ 7,952,000 1 Bike Path construction Total Debt $ 7,952,000 2 Environmental Mitigation 3 multi year council delegation cap Total Sources of Funds $ 50,031,369 4 bp capital for public facilities 5 fed cap for ag and farmers mk/health/small business Uses of Funds 6 public/community facilities legislative appropriation Pier Infrastructure Work, Demolition of Sheds, and $ 34,719,125 7 congressional delegation earmark sponsor through EDA/EPA/HHS Open Space Development12 8 capital for playground and equipment Environmental Mitigation12 $ 2,024,125 9 13 corporate giving campaign/building/path naming Construction of Sports Fields 37,209 sf $ 630,000 10 14 individual donor campaign forcap Construction of Community Facility 41,580 sf $ 13,575,000 11 12 mortgage finance proceeds from community center - see separate schedule Construction of Bike Path 238,064 sf $ 608,119 12 EDC Estimate Parking Spaces (120) 58,475 sf $ 475,000 13 Basketball, Tennis and Volleyball Cts Total Uses of Funds $ 51,556,369 14 see separate development shedule 15 subsurface/top coat/painting/drainage for parking Option 3 - Operating Budget Income Expenses Earned Income Capital Maintenance/ Contingency Farmer Mk/Food Vendor Net 265,000$ Marine Infrastructure Maintenance Playing Fields Memberships 110,000$ Open Space and Sports Fields Upgrades Events/Licenses $ 245,000 Subtotal $ 265,000 Concessions 195,000$ Set aside allowance for maint of cap imp Parking $ 700,800 Net Earned Income Subtotal $ 1,405,800 Operating Expenditures 130 day per year farmer mk with 20 - 30 stalls Utilities $ 210,000 corporate sponsorships and team memberships Admin Staff & Insurance $ 335,000 Licensing of air rights/communication antennas/advertising contracts Programming and Recreation Staff $ 195,000 Non-farmer mk/events/sports concessions and short-term leases Development Department Staff $ 140,000 $2/hr parking @ 16 hrs per day, lexx operator management expenses Leasing and Marketing Staff $ 190,000 Education/Youth Program Staff $ 145,000 Government Revenue LES Park Executive Director $ 175,000 NYC Parks 881,335$ Security $ 410,000 Fed DEP/NYS DEC 881,335$ Grounds maintenance $ 792,000 Government Subtotal $ 1,762,670 Canope/Seat Maintenance $ 245,000 Subtotal $ 2,837,000 Non-Government Support Exterior lighting/com facilities util/other electric/sprinks Team/Event Corporate Sponsorships 80,000$ Non mgt parks admin staff + prop a cgl insur Friends of LES Park Alliance 350,000$ For youth/education/community programs Foundation Program Funding 320,000$ management for government and giving campaign Foundation General Support 200,000$ marketing leasing and property management staff Non-Government Support Subtotal $ 950,000 School age child programs and pre school One time corporate events/branding/naming and corporate sports non profit park management Annual borough donor campaign and fundraising events Park-wide 24 hr sec staff Restricted program funding for youth/education/wellness/com dev Grass/path/garden/ath and open space General support for non profit ldc management For interior rec space/com facility only

Total Revenue 4,118,470$ Total Expenses 3,102,000$

Surplus Available for Capital Projects $ 1,016,470 Our Waterfront Park Community Center Pro Forma Income Statement

Income $/Year note Storefront Rents $720,000 18,000 sf @ $40 Non Profit Tenancies $350,000 17,500 sf @ 20 Community Events $85,000 Sponsorships $140,000 Subtotal $1,295,000 Less Vacancy @ 5% -$64,750 Net Rental Income $1,230,250

Expenses Insurance $45,000 PILOT $60,000 Utilities $48,000 Repairs/Maintenance $80,000 Youth Programming Coordinator $45,000 Outreach/Activities Director $35,000 Professional Fees $22,000 Waste/Sanitation $12,000 Service Contracts $16,000 Executive Director/Community Ctr $75,000 Other $25,000 Total Operating Costs $463,000

Net Operating Income $767,250

Debt Capacity Calculation Valuation @ 7.5% cap rt $10,230,000 Debt/Bond Load @ 75% $7,672,500

A PEOPLE’S PLAN FOR THE EAST RIVER WATERFRONT O.U.R. WATERFRONT COALITION